Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: HIV 'Negative' (Read 6614 times)

Can anyone who's sexually active ever be certain that they aren't in fact infected with the virus? I had no idea I was positive when I was diagnosed, and I am sure I wasn't the first to whom their diagnosis came as a surprise. Many of the sex date sites give the option to state one's status but, in reality, the only people that really know are those who've actually been diagnosed. The rest are basically 'HIV - unknown'.

That being the case, isn't it time we sought to do away with the term HIV 'negative'?

Logged

''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Can anyone who's sexually active ever be certain that they aren't in fact infected with the virus? I had no idea I

That being the case, isn't it time we sought to do away with the term HIV 'negative'?

No I don't think it is, I know many people who not only take responsibility for their health by enjoying safe sex. but test on a regular basis and are in fact HIV "NEGATIVE" and plan to stay that way...and I know accidents can and do happen, but people will always class themselves HIV "NEGATIVE" until they test and are diagnosed differently.

Can anyone who's sexually active ever be certain that they aren't in fact infected with the virus? I had no idea I was positive when I was diagnosed, and I am sure I wasn't the first to whom their diagnosis came as a surprise. Many of the sex date sites give the option to state one's status but, in reality, the only people that really know are those who've actually been diagnosed. The rest are basically 'HIV - unknown'.

That being the case, isn't it time we sought to do away with the term HIV 'negative'?

I think thats pretty silly. If you always have safe sex and test regularly HIV-, you pretty much know you are HIV-. Although it is only confirmed again the next time you take the test.

Also, if you are HIV- and don't have sex, then you know you are HIV-.

I knew I was HIV- for over 20 years! What's your point exactly?

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

I think thats pretty silly. If you always have safe sex and test regularly HIV-, you pretty much know you are HIV-. Although it is only confirmed again the next time you take the test.

Also, if you are HIV- and don't have sex, then you know you are HIV-.

I knew I was HIV- for over 20 years! What's your point exactly?

'Pretty much' isn't the same as knowing something as a fact though, since, as you say. it would need to be confirmed at a later date. But even a later test might not give the true picture if you'd had any sex more recently.

« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 06:20:59 PM by Zohar »

Logged

''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

the only people that really know are those who've actually been diagnosed. The rest are basically 'HIV - unknown'.

Again not so...my husband is not HIV-"Unknown"..he is HIV Negative, my kids are not HIV-"Unknown" they are HIV Negative..how do I know this?, because they get tested on a regular basis and have the results to prove it.

I can see what you are trying to say...at least I think I can, but it doesn't really work like that..you are either Positive or Negative when it comes to HIV.

Also, the day that someone receives a positive diagnosis will only on exceptionally rare occasions be the exact same day that they seroconvert. Far and away, the vast majority of people will only find out after the fact.

Logged

''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

No - why would we get rid of the term -- HIV negative is a true state of being -- there are people who are HIV negative ---- if a person has not had any risk, and knows that they are HIV negative then why would they say the are HIV unknown?

It would be like a 70 year old woman or 5 year old girl knowing they are not pregnant, but someone suggesting that the term "not pregnant" be eliminated.

Or a person iknowing s/he has never committed a crime, but having to say criminal status - unknown.

Eliminating the term - eliminates the ability for someone who knows s/he is HIV negative from being able to say it....

Or a person iknowing s/he has never committed a crime, but having to say criminal status - unknown.

OK, although I did make it clear in my opening post that I was referring to people who are sexually active. The direct equivalent here would be a celibate virgin. I mentioned the sex sites earlier, although I didn't want to limit the discussion just to people who use those, as obviously, sex also occurs without being mediated the internet.

Logged

''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

My first reaction when I read the post was this was an interesting notion because rather than HIV+ or HIV-, HIV Unknown is a third category that includes those who've either not been tested ever, or are not regularly getting tested when appropriate. I think, promotionally, it could be an interesting angle to assert.

The inherent and fundamental flaw in your assertion that anyone who is sexually active and has not been diagnosed positive is automatically in the HIV ‘unknown’ category is that it undermines the science (and consequent reliance people place on) safe & protected sex coupled with frequent testing.

(For example- If I last had sex 6 months ago (protected or not) and got tested today to see a neg result then I know I am HIV – with certainty).

Edited to add: Although, I understand where you are coming from. I didn't bother getting tested in 5 years as I consistently used condoms and thus assumed I must be negative, when in fact I was infected 5 years prior.

The answer, in my opinion, is promoting and encouranging voluntary testing of sexually active people rather than a pointless semantic change of terms/labels that have their basis in sound science as well as good public health policy.

Edited to add: Although, I understand where you are coming from. I didn't bother getting tested in 5 years as I consistently used condoms and thus assumed I must be negative, when in fact I was infected 5 years prior.

This edit is interesting, as I imagine that many people also underestimate their risk factors and believe testing is unnecessary as they assume themselves to be negative

Logged

''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

This edit is interesting, as I imagine that many people also underestimate their risk factors and believe testing is unnecessary as they assume themselves to be negative

Yes, I got infected despite taking precautions- somehow. Obviously mine isn't an 'immaculate infection', there must have been a risk factor which I can not recall.

That said, while I think I understand the logic of your HIV status label change argument, for the reasons stated in my previous post, I think it is wholly pointless and serves no purpose.

Another point against this 'HIV unknown' label is that it would wrongly and falsely trick people into thinking there are possibly many more undiagnosed poz folk running around spreading the virus than what is accurate (since your 'catch all' term would include many sure shot neggies within the ambit of possibly pozzed up but undiagnosed) which in turn would only fuel the paranoia and fear.

The only logical solution is to encourage voluntary testing among the sexually active demographic. In other words, encourage people to KNOW their HIV status, rather than add another illusive term to the mix that would only cause more confusion.

'''Another point against this 'HIV unknown' label is that it would wrongly and falsely trick people into thinking there are possibly many more undiagnosed poz folk running around spreading the virus than what is accurate (since your 'catch all' term would include many sure shot neggies within the ambit of possibly pozzed up but undiagnosed) which in turn would only fuel the paranoia and fear.'''

I've heard people say that they would never have sex with someone who knew themselves to be positive because, to them, that means the risk of contracting the virus is higher, than someone who hasn't been diagnosed as, statistically, they are likely to be negative. And yet, people who are diagnosed with HIV tend to take measures to avoid exposing partners to the virus, as well as being on treatment which means they are far less likely to transmit HIV.

People are paranoid and fearful already but, arguably, of the wrong demographic.

Logged

''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

I've heard people say that they would never have sex with someone who knew themselves to be positive because, to them, that means the risk of contracting the virus is higher, than someone who hasn't been diagnosed as, statistically, they are likely to be negative.

This mentality is wrong and is precisely what causes the spread of the virus. Explains the very flaw in your argument I am trying to highlight.

You for some reason want to drop the term ‘HIV neg’ and substitute it for 'HIV unknown' which includes everyone except people diagnosed positive.

Like I said before, this illusive ‘catch all’ term just adds more confusion to the clear cut SCIENTIFIC definitions -poz or neg. It also seems to falsely lead people to believe that there are MANY more undiagnosed poz folk than what is the reality.

And you just said that many people are ok with screwing someone who hasn't been diagnosed poz, as statistically, they are likely to be negative. So by your example, people would be more willing to have sex with someone who claims to have an HIV unknown status than HIV positive status and that’s precisely how the majority of people get infected.

Put another way, your rehashing of terminology is counter productive and not only exacerbates fear, paranoia and resulting stigma but by your example also illustartes how it can contribute to more infections. The vast majority of infections have ocurred precisely when people fucked and where one person was unaware of his/her status.

So you see, HIV unknown = more ambiguity of the person's ACTUAL status = more people having sex with such a person being led into the false sense of security that such person is negative, as per your example = more infections.

Way forward is- More voluntary testing so that people know whether they are poz or neg (whether they have HIV or not). And of course, educating everyone, particularly sexually active people, of HIV transmission risks.

PS - As for "HIV Unknown" -- this IS a category on one gay bareback cruising site - its for people who don't test much, or never tested, or have lots of risky sex. And everyone else knows to take the "HIV- category" on that site with a spoonful of suspicion and to take responsibilities for their own acts accordingly. But this is specialised stuff. Not for the dumb, naive or in denial.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

It is an interesting notion to me, but ONLY as a third category--of untested people. I don't think two categories or HIV positive or unknown as Zohar is suggesting is adequate or more important, accurate.

You for some reason want to drop the term ‘HIV neg’ and substitute it for 'HIV unknown' which includes everyone except people diagnosed positive.

Like I said before, this illusive ‘catch all’ term just adds more confusion to the clear cut SCIENTIFIC definitions -poz or neg. It also seems to falsely lead people to believe that there are MANY more undiagnosed poz folk than what is the reality.

And you just said that many people are ok with screwing someone who hasn't been diagnosed poz, as statistically, they are likely to be negative. So by your example, people would be more willing to have sex with someone who claims to have an HIV unknown status than HIV positive status and that’s precisely how the majority of people get infected.

Put another way, your rehashing of terminology is counter productive and not only exacerbates fear, paranoia and resulting stigma but by your example also illustartes how it can contribute to more infections. The vast majority of infections have ocurred precisely when people fucked and where one person was unaware of his/her status.

So you see, HIV unknown = more ambiguity of the person's ACTUAL status = more people having sex with such a person being led into the false sense of security that such person is negative, as per your example = more infections.

Way forward is- More voluntary testing so that people know whether they are poz or neg (whether they have HIV or not). And of course, educating everyone, particularly sexually active people, of HIV transmission risks.

It's one thing for science to have distinct definitions, which I do not dispute. However. it's quite another for people - and I've limited the discussion to people who are sexually active - to be able to say with certainty that the definition of negativity applies to them. Being negative as of your last test, is in no way a guarantee of NOT being positive.

I don't see how HIV unknown means people will be having more sex because of the 'ambiguity'. Where's the evidence for that? Known positive status will still be just that and people would still be able to disclose this as they do now. Also, as I've said, there's already a false sense of security anyway, by those who state they're negative when they're not, but have yet to be diagnosed.

The fact is, ambiguity is already a factor, it's just that people often make the assumption that it's not when they see/hear the words 'HIV negative'.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 05:27:21 PM by Zohar »

Logged

''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

It's one thing for science to have distinct definitions, which I do not dispute.

Your very first post does dispute distinct defnitions. You wanted to drop 'HIV -' and substitute it for HIV unknown. Now it seems that you're either backpedaling and changing your line of argument or are even more confused than I previously thought. Either way, what you now say is self-defeating for the suggestion you made in your first post.

Please read what the poster Zach above has said. No one is disputing that. If this is your new line of argument. I agree with you.

Quote

However. it's quite another for people - and I've limited the discussion to people who are sexually active - to be able to say with certainty that the definition of negativity applies to them. Being negative as of your last test, is in no way a guarantee of NOT being positive.

Your reasoning is extremely flawed and I have already pointed out why and so its not worth repeating. Another gaping flaw- please define 'sexually active'. It sounds so very vague like the rest of your arguments. Do I have to have sex once a year? once in 3, 6, or 4 months? once a month? once a week? every day? twice a day?- with multiple partners. I already pointed this out, but here it is again- If the last time I had sex was 6 months ago, a negative test today is a guarantee of not being positive. Your absurd HIV unknown term flies foul in the face of this scientifc fact.

Quote

I don't see how HIV unknown means people will be having more sex because of the 'ambiguity'. Where's the evidence for that?

I was relying on the the example you provided that people are more willing to have sex with someone of unknown status- a term which you thought should replace the scientific term HIV negative- thereby resulting in more infections. I gave you a long winded explantion as to why.

Do you disagree that HIV unknown is much more vague and ambiguous terminology and serves no useful purpose but only adds a new layer of vagueness and makes the waters murkier ?

Quote

Also, as I've said, there's already a false sense of security anyway, by those who state they're negative when they're not, but have yet to be diagnosed.

The fact is, ambiguity is already a factor, it's just that people often make the assumption that it's not when they see/hear the words 'HIV negative'.

Yes, and this I do understand. I was running around thinking I did not have HIV when in fact I did. Or I was HIV + and thought I was HIV -. The solution would have been, for me to have grown a pair and get tested sooner rather than continue fucking around by saying I am HIV unknown! (precisely what your HIV unknown term’s (as per your original definition) effect will be).

Why do you fail to understand that the solution is to get tested and ascertain your status rather than a pointless and counter productive semantic change that only adds to the sense of false security?!

If ambiguity is already a factor then adding a new term does nothing but increase the vagueness and uncertainty of the actual status of people (i.e. whether they actually have HIV or not!)- and makes the waters murkier. There is NO benefit.

Give up already Zohar. And let’s hear what you have to say on the 'I am HIV' poll please?

Your very first post does dispute distinct defnitions. You wanted to drop 'HIV -' and substitute it for HIV unknown. Now it seems that you're either backpedaling and changing your line of argument or are even more confused than I previously thought. Either way, what you now say is self-defeating for the suggestion you made in your first post.

Please read what the poster Zach above has said. No one is disputing that. If this is your new line of argument. I agree with you.

Your reasoning is extremely flawed and I have already pointed out why and so its not worth repeating. Another gaping flaw- please define 'sexually active'. It sounds so very vague like the rest of your arguments. Do I have to have sex once a year? once in 3, 6, or 4 months? once a month? once a week? every day? twice a day?- with multiple partners. I already pointed this out, but here it is again- If the last time I had sex was 6 months ago, a negative test today is a guarantee of not being positive. Your absurd HIV unknown term flies foul in the face of this scientifc fact.

I was relying on the the example you provided that people are more willing to have sex with someone of unknown status- a term which you thought should replace the scientific term HIV negative- thereby resulting in more infections. I gave you a long winded explantion as to why.

Do you disagree that HIV unknown is much more vague and ambiguous terminology and serves no useful purpose but only adds a new layer of vagueness and makes the waters murkier ?

Yes, and this I do understand. I was running around thinking I did not have HIV when in fact I did. Or I was HIV + and thought I was HIV -. The solution would have been, for me to have grown a pair and get tested sooner rather than continue fucking around by saying I am HIV unknown! (precisely what your HIV unknown term’s (as per your original definition) effect will be).

Why do you fail to understand that the solution is to get tested and ascertain your status rather than a pointless and counter productive semantic change that only adds to the sense of false security?!

If ambiguity is already a factor then adding a new term does nothing but increase the vagueness and uncertainty of the actual status of people (i.e. whether they actually have HIV or not!)- and makes the waters murkier. There is NO benefit.

Give up already Zohar. And let’s hear what you have to say on the 'I am HIV' poll please?

I'm not disputing definitions, but I am disputing the way in which people can apply them to themselves and to other people. HIV 'negative' often seems to come with an unspoken caveat, which is really what this thread is about.

There often seems to be a dividing line - HIV positive and HIV negative - but things simply aren't that clear cut and HIV negative can actually be a very grey area depending on individual circumstances

I'm not particularly stuck on the phrase 'HIV unknown'. I just used it to highlight the uncertainty. And I'm all for more widespread voluntary testing. I wonder what might convince more people that they need to have them more frequently? Perhaps the fact that things aren't quite as black and white as they initially appear.

« Last Edit: July 31, 2011, 08:35:15 AM by Zohar »

Logged

''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

I don't have cancer (maybe I do and just dont know it yet)I don't have syphillus (maybe I do and dont know it yet)I dont have Chlamydia (maybe I do and dont know it)I dont have heart disease (I might?)

Point is. Unless we have tested positive for something we are considered to be negative. Even if the disease is contagious.

I think this has less to do with enlightening the masses than it does with the OP trying to make himself feel better about his status by making everybody else either "poz" or "potentially poz".

And I also don't know why anyone on here would continue to engage in this ridiculous prattle - especially when the OP is obviously, deliberately ignoring all requests that he address his "I am HIV" thread.

I'm not disputing definitions, but I am disputing the way in which people can apply them to themselves and to other people. HIV 'negative' often seems to come with an unspoken caveat, which is really what this thread is about.

There often seems to be a dividing line - HIV positive and HIV negative - but things simply aren't that clear cut and HIV negative can actually be a very grey area depending on individual circumstances

I'm not particularly stuck on the phrase 'HIV unknown'. I just used it to highlight the uncertainty. And I'm all for more widespread voluntary testing. I wonder what might convince more people that they need to have then more often? Perhaps the fact that things aren't quite as black and white as they initially appear.

If only you had said this in your opening post we wouldn't have gone through the whole back and forth exchange of the validity of HIV unknown = Everyone except people diagnosed +.

What you say now is strikingly similar to what Zach said and I do largely agree with the logic of it.

I think this has less to do with enlightening the masses than it does with the OP trying to make himself feel better about his status by making everybody else either "poz" or "potentially poz".

HIV is everyone's problem, not just those of us who have been diagnosed. The number of people with undiagnosed HIV is around a quarter to a third of all people with HIV, and that estimate seems to have remained the same for years. That's quite a few people walking around thinking, and possibly telling others, they're negative, when they're not.

Think what you like about me, but nothing will change in terms of these figures as long as people assume that one negative test result months ago, means they are still negative today, if they've been sexually active since.

Logged

''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

And I also don't know why anyone on here would continue to engage in this ridiculous prattle - especially when the OP is obviously, deliberately ignoring all requests that he address his "I am HIV" thread.

HIV is everyone's problem, not just those of us who have been diagnosed. The number of people with undiagnosed HIV is around a quarter to a third of all people with HIV, and that estimate seems to have remained the same for years. That's quite a few people walking around thinking, and possibly telling others, they're negative, when they're not.

Think what you like about me, but nothing will change in terms of these figures as long as people assume that one negative test result months ago, means they are still negative today, if they've been sexually active since.

*sigh*

People cling to those "negative" test results for eons because they want to, assuming no news is good news. And they'll cling to "unknown" the same way (and already have been on hook up sites and such for ages).

The only thing of interest in this thread is the question of why you keep dodging the "I am HIV" requests that have been made repeatedly.

as people assume that one negative test result months ago, means they are still negative today, if they've been sexually active since.

that's just untrue. Condoms have repeatedly been proven to be extremely effective at stopping the spread of HIV, so that a sexually active person consistently using condoms (like untold millions do now after years of anti-pregnancy and anti-HIV messaging) can assume that they have remained negative. This assumption is confirmed by the vast majority of people who regularly test for HIV and consistently remain HIV negative. Thousand upon thousands of people in America have remained negative through the 30 known years of this epidemic; while only a relatively small amount of the population has actually ended up infected (the potential 1.5 million people infected in US are less than .5% of the nearly 308 million total population).

Reading through the OP's responses in this thread, I find it interesting (well, to be honest only very very very mildly interesting) and suspect that he continuously provides the quotes of other posters in his responses, but always "conveniently" does not include the part of other member's responses that asks why he has not responded to his other thread "I am HIV." Selective editing/quoting on his part...... Very intereresting ---- NOT.... just not as much fun when the "covers are pulled...."

ok, back to my Discovery channel show on the spectacular lifespan of the beatle moth, which is indigenous to parts of the world yet explored (NOW, THIS IS INTERESTING!!)......